Crysis Console Vs PC Comparison: Which version looks better?

"Four years have passed and still there are a few gaming PCs around that can run Crysis at maximum setting and resolution. Recently Crytek and EA announced that the four year old shooter is making its way on consoles, the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.
We decided to compare some recently released screenshots of the console version and what we did was fire up our beastly PC and compared the exact locations. Mind you we made the resolution 720p but with all the settings on high."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
AngelGirl162683d ago

I think the pics might have been labeled wrong because the 360/PS3 version looked better than the PC version.

piroh2683d ago (Edited 2683d ago )

in my opinion lightning and effects are better for consoles according to these screenshots

obviously, they have 4 years to polish

now i am excited bring it on

osamaq2683d ago (Edited 2683d ago )

@piroh what are you talking about !!.... PC is far more realistic as I can see ... the colors is far more natural...

and I'm a console owner by the way ...

kharma452683d ago

The only reason the colours look difference is the night/day cycle in the game, the console version is quite obviously earlier in the day than the PC which looks like it's getting near to sunset.

BiggCMan2683d ago

It will look fine on the consoles. However, the ability to add mods to the PC version is what makes it superior in the graphics department.

You can't get this on the consoles.

bozebo2683d ago

The screenshots were obviously taken with bias towards the consoles tbh.

The consoles will simply not have enough power to handle the complex shaders that the game uses (sub surface scattering, atmospheric scattering, parralax mapping etc).

Also, the PC screenshots were downscaled to those silly low-res images used in the article which causes quite a lot of blurring and makes the textures look low res.

Just wait until it's actually out on consoles then the differences will be obvious.

Heres a video of the differences in motion:
but, it is also taken with a bit of bias towards PC I will admit - but at least its actually the same scenes and not totally different parts of the environment like this article.

Also fyi, a PC to max out crysis at 1080p with 50-70fps today costs about £600 (I built one yesterday for a friend with new components). My PC from 2008 that cost £800 can very nearly max it out at 1680x1050 but only at about 30-40fps so it has a lot of input lag which makes it hard to play with a mouse but it feels fine with a controller.

Still, I am impressed with how Crysis 1 looks on consoles overall; certainly looks better than Crysis 2 does.

Pixel_Pusher2683d ago (Edited 2683d ago )

they mixed up picture 3 of 5 there's no way in hell that's PC.

Kurylo3d2683d ago

This article is a joke.. that level has different times of day... so they took a screenshot of when the sun first rises for the pc version and a screenshot of a brighter full noon looking version for the 360/ps3.. and then they say the console version is better. hahhaa your not gonna fool people who actually played crysis ... dumb writer dumb article.

BlindGuardian2683d ago

the Crysis expansion looked better than the main game and it required a lot less resources, and that's because they had time to optimized the performance

is it that surprising that they used the same process for this console port?

not only hardware changes over time but development software as well and what needed a lot of power 4 years ago and now it can be done with a lot less

I can't believe all these PC gamers commenting here don't know that

decrypt2683d ago

Lol its sad watching the lengths console gamers will go to just to defend 6 year old tech.

Its just that most of them are butt hurt that even multiplats look and run better on the pc than console exclusives.

Megaton2683d ago

@Pixel_Pusher - Yeah, that can't be PC. Or at least not "very high" as GB claims. At the very least, AF is clearly turned off in that screenshot.

Not surprised to find this pile from GB, though. I bet they grabbed some of their "screenshots" from trailers.

specialguest2683d ago

This is freaking Gamingbolt. One of the worst sites out there. You will not find a legit comparison here. They are laughing their ass off knowing they just disturbed the PC ant nest on purpose, just to gain hits. So far, they've done a good job at that.

MaxXAttaxX2683d ago

I think that's all that matters as long as the game runs smoothly.

B00M2683d ago

bozebo - a £600 PC that maxes crysis with 50-70 fps? what were the specs? not trolling actually wanna know because I spent about £720 on my rig.

Theonetheonly2683d ago

my 2 cents.

they will gut this game port to cryengine 3
lower texture rez to the rez of those in crysis 2 and switch to their new deferred ligting and shadow system.

Come on people. dont fool yourselves if they couldnt get crysis 2 to be the best looking game on consoles, they have no chance of doing so with arguably the best looking game released on pc. absolutely bogus.

list of things i am almost sure will be squeezed for performance.

1 massive texture resolution downgrade.
2 switch from global illumination to deferred lighting and shadows, which are realtime yet not tied explicitly to framerate.

vs crysis 1 pc

notice how physics are not tied to framerate in cryengine 3 meaning slow objects when performance is at risk.

4 say goodbye to volumetric lighting and say hello to post process godrays,

5 the geometry invovled in the original crysis was and still is impossible on consoles, everything will be changed trees and foliage will be less dense and less responsive to shockwaves if shockwaves even make it into the game.

6 volumetric explosions will be gone as well as volumetric clouds.

7 draw distance will at least be cut in half.

8 lod aa af, will be cut in 1/4 ao Parallax occlusion mapping will be nonexistant as well.

9 specular vegetation will only be used on plants with big leaves, like palm trees and those big leaved plants.

all of this will be missing in order to cram this sandbox into 6 year old hardware please dont kid yourselves.

and it will all be justified by the "New Color grading" that will do little more than change the colors of a severely handicapped version of the original CRYSIS.

at least it will be at 720p right.

i get disappointed when people dont understand performance cost/visual fidelity are directly proportional.


Sunhammer2683d ago (Edited 2683d ago )

Hey guys, check out that disgusting filth right there.

Sub-HD? Check.
Crytek using bullshots again by releasing blown up "1080p" screen shots of a sub-HD game? Check.
Pretty much nonexistent anti-aliasing? Check.
"Remastered in HD"? How, if the console versions aren't HD and the PC version supported native 1080p from the go? Check.
Laughable downgrade in textures? Check.

Good job on the "remastered" port, Crytek.

I'm not even a PC gaming fanboy and I can admit that Crysis on consoles looks like Crysis on low settings with slightly redone lighting.

I'm sure PC elitists are laughing right now and so am I. It is amazing what Crytek can get console fantards to believe.

BattleAxe2683d ago

Just another stupid gaming bolt article. This is one of those questions that doesn't even need to be asked as the answer is obvious. Console only gamers should just be happy that they get to play another awesome game that looks good.

Sub4Dis2683d ago

It would sort of be like going from prime rib to...i don't know...weird brother of prime rib.

Mr_Lu_Kim2683d ago (Edited 2683d ago )

Even with his little updte claimng this article is real, it's still FAKE and the submitter is a looser and a fanboy...

Grow up kiddies, we all know it won't and physicaly can't on this genertion of console hardware look better than the PC version 4 years ago.

Also who the F are they again... Oh that's right a nobody site looking for hits.

Eyesoftheraven2683d ago

Here are two 1080p videos comparing vanilla DX10 original PC Crysis running under Very High settings against the new console footage:

slayorofgods2683d ago (Edited 2683d ago )

the lighting and game play effects were huge on pc. It is hard to judge which looks better on a still screen image.

totally agree. One lousy image really doesn't even begin to compare. I know people are excited about getting Crysis on consoles, but you also have to realize what the game is capable of on a pc to really appreciate it. That image doesn't even begin to showcase why the pc version of Crysis was a graphical masterpiece for its time.

ProjectVulcan2683d ago (Edited 2683d ago )

The low resolution shots help to hide the obvious differences you would see playing it on a decent sized, HD screen. Its a terrible comparison, because it is heavily biased towards the console version this way.

As per usual they are putting the PC version up against console, on the console's terms, at low end 720p which hides major asset differences.

For example most Crysis PC textures are 1024 x 1024, and several are 2048 x 2048!!

This is difficult to see in those low res shots. However i have seen a full size console set of shots on LOT, and it is OBVIOUS the console version has no texture bigger than 512 x 512.

Please for the love of god, ignore this awful comparison. It flatters the console version and destroys much of the detail of the PC version i have come to be accustomed to and are very aware of.

Extremely disappointed with the quality of this article.

Yukicore2677d ago

Of course. Back in 2006 when they were still making the game, those graphics looked so phenomenal, that they didn't have any clue what can they improve graphically.

+ Show (19) more repliesLast reply 2677d ago
egidem2683d ago (Edited 2683d ago )

Something tells me that this AngelGirl16 has something to do with WariorPrincess, that trolling troll.

Joined not long ago, commenting first on the articles, yeah..could be the same person.

On the side of things, why are people doing pointless comparisons like Crysis PC version vs a console port?? Seriously? Must we place them side by side just to conclude that the PC version *GHASP* looks better than the console port?

AngelGirl162683d ago

I have no idea what you're talking about about but if you read the article and the update. The guy tested the pc version at 720p and the settings all on high. So it really amazing that it looks better than the pc at those settings. This might be too good to be true so we might have to wait until the game is released to compare.

Tanir2683d ago

a 500,000 Gajillion dollar computer will always look better than a console..........unless it was a 10 year old diamond encrusted compaq

NarooN2683d ago

I'm not sure who would pay that much for a PC, but you can build a PC from scratch right now, I'm talkin GPU, CPU, PSU, MOBO, RAM, Sound Card, Case, and any other accessories, and it'd top out at around $600-700 and could run Crysis 1 & 2 maxed @ 1080p with 30fps minimum.

Tanir2683d ago

lol naroon, it was a joke *sigh haha. fact is console = 250-300, pc = 600-1000 depending on your monitor and accesories. i have a 1200$ pc i know. it makes gorgeous games far above ps3 and 360 wen it comes to multiplats buuuuut......price difference is a huge hinderance. not sure any1 can afford that wen people complain that ps3 is 250 lol

frostyhat1232683d ago

Well it is a 4 year old game so I wouldn't be suprised if they looked exactly the same!

smilydude132683d ago

Hey guys. Something seems bizarre about their comparison and it really doesn't show the differences. I would also like to clarify that the time of day is different in each photo which is extremely misleading.

I believe that site does a much, much, MUCH better job at illustrating the difference between the versions. For instance the lighting appears to have been significantly downgraded and doesn't seem nearly as subtle, and the difference in foliage is extremely noticeable.

DigitalAnalog2683d ago

But since they're able to "port" Crysis 1 (a game where most PC fans claims that is impossible to do on consoles). It then makes you wonder why Crysis 2 isn't as open as this?

One thing is for sure, there's going to be numerous setbacks with this port considering the scope is bigger. However, the color palette of the new engine gives it a more updated look then the PC counterpart.

As a note, I think it serves great injustice that they had to force a 720p resolution to compare the consoles, bumping the resolution higher to 1080p would've made a very big difference in image quality.

-End statement

smilydude132683d ago

The color difference is because it's a different time of day in each of the photos.

The PC version seems to be at dusk, while the console appears to be the afternoon.

I think does a more accurate comparison between the two versions.

iamgoatman2683d ago (Edited 2683d ago )

Seeing as most of those PC shots look terrible, here's at least what the PC screenshot from the first comparison SHOULD look like.

It also should be noted that Crytek seem to have altered the TOD and colour grading for the console versions, unless you have everything on medium with the contrast and brightness wacked up, the game never has that blue hue.

stevenhiggster2683d ago

The console shots are clearly from the xbox version, it always has over done contrast ratios.

Jo0j2683d ago

it is xbox pics, on pic 2 you can clearly see the A-Y-X-B buttons on the gun

awi59512683d ago (Edited 2683d ago )

Fraps records at very low res. If you try to crank it up it kills your pc. I wouldnt use fraps to capture anything you need lots of detail or to show off graphics. Also fraps has a max res it supports and its not very high. IF you try to record 3min in fraps at 1080P its like a 100gig file.

SantistaUSA2683d ago

very true, fraps kills your performance! GB did a very poor job on this comparison!!!

bozebo2683d ago (Edited 2683d ago )

Also they are using screenshots... so why use fraps at all lol when there is PrintScr or an in-game screenshot button.

Bob5702683d ago

The only problem with the PC screenshot is the greyed-out color, which is easily remedied with a nice monitor or by adjusting the in-game contrast, brightness, and gamma bars.

The foliage looks better, the particle effects and volumetric clouds/smokes is better, higher resolution textures etc.

hiredhelp2683d ago

Ok could you please state what video card your using what dx your using. and must be at least a core 2 duo. as the 360 has 2 cores. and be nice to see fraps. i see no FPS on screen shots thankyou.

Bigpappy2683d ago

360 has a unique 3 core processor.

hiredhelp2683d ago (Edited 2683d ago )

Thankyou for correcting me your right. ;)

Xbox 360
Intel Xenon CPU- 3 Cores @ 3.2ghz each (9.6ghhz threaded)
512MB RAM shared between GPU and CPU

Cell Broadband SPU - 8Cores (1 disabled as back up) @3.2Ghz each (25.6Ghz Threaded)
256mb system RAM
256mb Dedicated Graphics RAM

Love a pc to run a cell processor imagin what that could do.

HenryFord2683d ago

mhm? The XBox uses a PowerPC-CPU, that isn't built by Intel but by AMD (and another dev. when my mind serves me right, I think they built it in a joint-venture). The CPU is thus based upon IBM's PowerPC architecture, has nothing to do with Intel...

You are maybe thinking of Intel Xeon which again has nothing to do with the Xbox...

The Cell-Processors wouldn't do any good for the PC-crowd because they have very limited usability. The raw-processing power might be higher than the usual x86_64-chipsets used nowadays, but it is also highly specific and specialized. The PC-Crowd uses GPU-chipsets in order to achieve the same power, and a regular modern GPU can do much better than the PS3's cell-architecture. The only thing in which the cell-architecture outdoes a modern GPU is distributed-computing, at least that is what they tell is - I don't think that is even true any more.
Another thing is that the cell-architecture has a very difficult instruction-set, making it hard to develope on that thing.

Long story short: You really do not want the cell-architecture inside your PC. And if you want - you can order yourself a blade-center, which utilizes cell-architecture.

Also - you might want to begin to read into this stuff as you will realize that the frequenz of a processor isn't really worth being mentioned, especially when you try to compare different architectures against each other.

TheXonySbox2682d ago (Edited 2682d ago )

you literally know nothing of computer hardware, lmao please take a comp sci course to enlighten your ignorance.

Lol, thanks for giving me a laugh though.

hiredhelp - xbox360=9.6ghz, LMAO! hahahahahaha
I guess that makes my I7.. 15.6ghz, and 31.2ghz if you count the Hyper thread'n cuz u know it doubles yur ghz.

end /S

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2682d ago
TheXonySbox2683d ago

you'd have to be half retarded to think a 6 year old console can trump hardware that still has trouble running crysis on ultra.

Simple as this, if you own a console and need to look a this graphics shit; you seriously need to consider computer gaming, seriously all these games are already gimmped on consoles just due to the resolution alone; let alone the counless other limitations with graphics.

If you care about gameplay, consoles are GREAT; but if you honestly are a graphics whore, comparing PC games you honestly need to open your eyes.

Even ugly PC games look better then most console games because of the sheer clarity that you have before you, let alone the effects that we have the horsepower to create.


PtRoLLFacE2683d ago when i see that in consoles the fuking way console will even match med settings lol

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 2677d ago
vickysud2683d ago (Edited 2683d ago )


gameseveryday2683d ago

did you even read the post? The point is the console version is looking more 'colorful' than the pc version.

And in some instances it is even looking better than the PC version.

AngelGirl162683d ago

I don't know why you have disagrees.

Sunhammer2683d ago

More colorful based on what? I can guarantee you the console versions will be loaded with jaggies. Crytek only releases doctored images captured from computers they build, which have Crysis running max settings and full AA, far beyond 30 frames per second. They also speed up their trailers and add motion blur to hide any imperfections with frame rate or jaggies.

How much you wanna bet Crysis on consoles will barely even be locked at 30 fps and will use a very low standard of AA?

Oh wait, it's Rashid Sayed from, A.K.A the worst website ever made.

Motorola2683d ago


SantistaUSA2683d ago

hey Rashid S. your site is just looking for hits, which is ok, but you are doing it by misleading tactics!!!

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2683d ago
Karooo2683d ago

Read the article.

"We decided to compare some recently released screenshots of the console version and what we did was fire up our beastly PC and compared the exact locations. Mind you we made the resolution 720p but with all the settings on high."

Pandamobile2683d ago

So you take some low res PC screenshots, forget to use the highest settings, then compare it to high-res renders from the console version.

Video game journalism at its finest, ladies and gents.

contra1572683d ago

I dont understand why they put it up against the computer when computers are at least 5yrs ahead. EVERYBODY PC IS BETTER GET OVER IT.

Optical_Matrix2683d ago

Is that a serious question? I don't even..

lugia 40002683d ago (Edited 2683d ago )

mmm, I don't know. Maybe my GTX580 is not better than my Xbox. Maybe my xbox is just better. Very stupid article. Want colorful crap? Get a modded config.

bozebo2683d ago

8600GS for £40 is better than your 360.

cliffbo2683d ago

"8600GS for £40 is better than your 360."

you do realise a gpu by itself just won`t work at all right?.LOL

monkeymagik2683d ago


8600gs, rofl. Your funny.

8600gs does not have the pixel throughput or shader power to even touch the 360. Maybe your thinking of the 8800gs. which would be close.

Or maybe you just underestimate AMD.

hiredhelp2683d ago

no but a 4870 would be cheaper and still dominate consoles. and yes can if this person was knowledgable with this game put it to a ultra setting

NYC_Gamer2683d ago

These type of post bring the worse out of gamers

SageHonor2683d ago

And the sad part is that "these types of articles" gets the most hits. Its like gamers are intentionally going to these articles so they can complain.